Australian Aged Pension

[KhunHeineken]

6 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Your figure of hundreds of thousands is quite exaggerated. According to Google, there are about 20,000 Australian retirees in Thailand, and some of those are self-funded. Thailand is probably the most frequently selected retirement destination for Australians overseas, for various reasons. Those numbers should not be confused with expat numbers, which is what you appear to be doing.

I'm not confusing anything.  What about the other 194 countries in the world?  What about the Aussie expats living in those countries?  These proposed changes don't just target expats living in Thailand.  They target all expats deriving an income from Australia who are overseas for more than 183 days, no matter what country they are in. 

 

I actually think there are many self funded expats, and even more to come in the future, given compulsory super started in the 80's.  Will they continue to be able to afford living overseas if their earnings / income are taxed at non resident rates?

 

I agree Thailand would be one the most popular places, if not the most popular place for Aussie expat retirees.  I would say Bali would be  popular as well. 

 

See the below link.  It's from a government website. 

 

This is what it says, "At any time, there are around one million Australians living and working overseas. Whatever the reason for moving overseas, properly preparing for a long stint will make the transition less stressful. Read this page along with our guide for all travellers for a great start!"

 

https://www.smartraveller.gov.au/before-you-go/activities/living-overseas#:~:text=At any time%2C there are,travellers for a great start!

 

Here's the same from Services Australia.

 

This is what it says,  "At any time there’s around one million Australians living and working overseas. Properly preparing for a long stint outside Australia will make the transition less stressful. Read Going overseas to live or work on the smartraveller website for more information."

 

https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/when-you-live-outside-australia?context=60040

 

It will depend how many of the over 1 million will be able to continue to afford to live overseas if they are taxed at non resident rates.  Many may make some big lifestyle adjustments and remain overseas on less income.  Some may adjust their finances so they are less exposed to non resident tax, and some will be indirectly forced home. 

 

Over 1 million Aussies living overseas, out of a population of only 28 million Australians,  many of whom are not currently being taxed at non resident rates, not to mention, they are supporting a foreign country's economy with money from Australia, and you don't think the Australian government might like a piece of that action?

 

6 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Forcing elderly retirees to return would put more strain on an already broken Medicare system. We are much more likely to need medical care. In addition, the

government would have to start forking out extra cash for supplements such as energy, phone, transport and rent assistance.

I have addressed this. 

 

Do you think the savings made in pensions, and taxing of self funded retirees, and those still working, many of whom are on big money, would more than cover any additional costs?

 

What about all the extra tax the government gets back from the pension by having these expats return.  Eg.  GST, fuel and alcohol excise etc etc. 

 

6 hours ago, Lacessit said:

When returning retirees are paying 50-60% of their pension income in rent alone, how can the government get extra benefit from people living on Mama noodles?

 

Let's say the government decides to tax the pensions of people living overseas at 30%. Said pensioners simply don't put in a tax return. The ATO may be able to collect the tax in advance, which I see as another Robodebt time bomb. Inevitably, bureaucracies make mistakes.

 

You see it as a win-win, I see it as a cost "saving" which would not be worth the effort of implementation.

Do you think the government cares?

 

I remember in the 80's when some pensioners were forced to eat PAL dog food, or go hungry.

 

Every winter now the saying is,  "do I heat or do I eat" because pensioners can't afford to turn the heater on in winter, and to have some dinner.  They have to chose one, or the other.  

 

Why would they have to submit a tax return? 

 

Immigration tell Centrelink whose been outside of Australia for 183 days.  The next fortnight's pension is reduced by 30%.  What avenue of complaint do you have?  What avenue of appeal do you have? 

 

Can you see how simple the proposed changes are to collect non resident tax?  It's like traffic lights. The light was red when you went through, here's your fine.  It's can't be half red.  183 days is 183 days.  Income is income.

 

You see it as cost saving as far as pensioners are concerned, but what about all the self funded retirees.  That's not saving, that's revenue for the government.  Then what about all the people still working, on big money, playing the current system.  That's even more revenue for the government.  It all amounts to billions of extra dollars in revenue, and the only down side is people have to wait longer to see a doctor, as if the government cares about that. 

 

Let's just say the proposed changes come in, and pensions are not exempt.  Do expat retirees living outside of Australia for more than 183 days, and who are receiving a Centrelink pension, come under the criteria of been taxed at non resident rates, as per the proposed changes?

 

If the answer yes, the only hope is for an exemption.

 

If the answer is no, I'm happy to hear what part of the criteria they do not fit under.   

Edited February 12, 2023 by KhunHeineken

[KhunHeineken]

2 hours ago, scorecard said:

You're way too personal and not your business to be asking folks here to explain themselves / explain details.  

Just watching out for the member.  Wouldn't want to see him in the news with the headline, "Australian expat arrested in Thailand for defrauding the Australian government for 14 years." 

[scorecard]

14 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Just watching out for the member.  Wouldn't want to see him in the news with the headline, "Australian expat arrested in Thailand for defrauding the Australian government for 14 years." 

But you are not an expert on these subjects, far from it, so you shouldn't be so fast to give your opinions (often sound more like statements rather than opinions). Further you seem hell bent on making people feel vulnerable. Not nice and not needed.

 

In any case right now this is a very open subject and anything could happen. Any changes will need to go through various announcements before an election and then ultimately the full legislative process.

 

Sure some politicians will vote the party line, others won't and that will include polies who will baulk at any changes in laws/regulations which negatively affect pensioners. (30% tax, really.)

 

[Lacessit]

15 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

I'm not confusing anything.  What about the other 194 countries in the world?  What about the Aussie expats living in those countries?  These proposed changes don't just target expats living in Thailand.  They target all expats deriving an income from Australia who are overseas for more than 183 days, no matter what country they are in. 

 

I actually think there are many self funded expats, and even more to come in the future, given compulsory super started in the 80's.  Will they continue to be able to afford living overseas if their earnings / income are taxed at non resident rates?

 

I agree Thailand would be one the most popular places, if not the most popular place for Aussie expat retirees.  I would say Bali would be  popular as well. 

 

See the below link.  It's from a government website. 

 

This is what it says, "At any time, there are around one million Australians living and working overseas. Whatever the reason for moving overseas, properly preparing for a long stint will make the transition less stressful. Read this page along with our guide for all travellers for a great start!"

 

https://www.smartraveller.gov.au/before-you-go/activities/living-overseas#:~:text=At any time%2C there are,travellers for a great start!

 

Here's the same from Services Australia.

 

This is what it says,  "At any time there’s around one million Australians living and working overseas. Properly preparing for a long stint outside Australia will make the transition less stressful. Read Going overseas to live or work on the smartraveller website for more information."

 

https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/when-you-live-outside-australia?context=60040

 

It will depend how many of the over 1 million will be able to continue to afford to live overseas if they are taxed at non resident rates.  Many may make some big lifestyle adjustments and remain overseas on less income.  Some may adjust their finances so they are less exposed to non resident tax, and some will be indirectly forced home. 

 

I have addressed this. 

 

Do you think the savings made in pensions, and taxing of self funded retirees, and those still working, many of whom are on big money, would more than cover any additional costs?

 

What about all the extra tax the government gets back from the pension by having these expats return.  Eg.  GST, fuel and alcohol excise etc etc. 

 

Do you think the government cares?

 

I remember in the 80's when some pensioners were forced to eat PAL dog food, or go hungry.

 

Every winter now the saying is,  "do I heat or do I eat" because pensioners can't afford to turn the heater on in winter, and to have some dinner.  They have to chose one, or the other.  

 

Why would they have to submit a tax return? 

 

Immigration tell Centrelink whose been outside of Australia for 183 days.  The next fortnight's pension is reduced by 30%.  What avenue of complaint do you have?  What avenue of appeal do you have? 

 

Can you see how simple the proposed changes are to collect non resident tax?  It's like traffic lights. The light was red when you went through, here's your fine.  It's can't be half red.  183 days is 183 days.  Income is income.

 

You see it as cost saving as far as pensioners are concerned, but what about all the self funded retirees.  That's not saving, that's revenue for the government.  Then what about all the people still working, on big money, playing the current system.  That's even more revenue for the government.  It all amounts to billions of extra dollars in revenue, and the only down side is people have to wait longer to see a doctor, as if the government cares about that. 

 

Let's just say the proposed changes come in, and pensions are not exempt.  Do expat retirees living outside of Australia for more than 183 days, and who are receiving a Centrelink pension, come under the criteria of been taxed at non resident rates, as per the proposed changes?

 

If the answer yes, the only hope is for an exemption.

 

If the answer is no, I'm happy to hear what part of the criteria they do not fit under.   

Taxing expats is one thing, taxing pensions is an entirely different kettle of fish.

When pensioners are forced to head back to Australia or be taxed 30% or whatever, they will be angry. And as the last election demonstrated quite unequivocally, angry people elect TEAL independents because they have had enough of the major parties.

Self-funded retirees are living off investments within their superannuation funds. Which are a sacred cow in Australian politics. Look what happened to Shorten when he proposed those changes to dividend imputation credits, a considerable component of superannuation income.

Self-funded or OAP recipients, retirees are a significant electoral bloc. Whether they are inside or outside Australia.

[LosLobo]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

I'm not confusing anything.  What about the other 194 countries in the world?  What about the Aussie expats living in those countries?  These proposed changes don't just target expats living in Thailand.  They target all expats deriving an income from Australia who are overseas for more than 183 days, no matter what country they are in. 

 

I actually think there are many self funded expats, and even more to come in the future, given compulsory super started in the 80's.  Will they continue to be able to afford living overseas if their earnings / income are taxed at non resident rates?

 

I agree Thailand would be one the most popular places, if not the most popular place for Aussie expat retirees.  I would say Bali would be  popular as well. 

 

See the below link.  It's from a government website. 

 

This is what it says, "At any time, there are around one million Australians living and working overseas. Whatever the reason for moving overseas, properly preparing for a long stint will make the transition less stressful. Read this page along with our guide for all travellers for a great start!"

 

https://www.smartraveller.gov.au/before-you-go/activities/living-overseas#:~:text=At any time%2C there are,travellers for a great start!

 

Here's the same from Services Australia.

 

This is what it says,  "At any time there’s around one million Australians living and working overseas. Properly preparing for a long stint outside Australia will make the transition less stressful. Read Going overseas to live or work on the smartraveller website for more information."

 

https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/when-you-live-outside-australia?context=60040

 

It will depend how many of the over 1 million will be able to continue to afford to live overseas if they are taxed at non resident rates.  Many may make some big lifestyle adjustments and remain overseas on less income.  Some may adjust their finances so they are less exposed to non resident tax, and some will be indirectly forced home. 

 

I have addressed this. 

 

Do you think the savings made in pensions, and taxing of self funded retirees, and those still working, many of whom are on big money, would more than cover any additional costs?

 

What about all the extra tax the government gets back from the pension by having these expats return.  Eg.  GST, fuel and alcohol excise etc etc. 

 

Do you think the government cares?

 

I remember in the 80's when some pensioners were forced to eat PAL dog food, or go hungry.

 

Every winter now the saying is,  "do I heat or do I eat" because pensioners can't afford to turn the heater on in winter, and to have some dinner.  They have to chose one, or the other.  

 

Why would they have to submit a tax return? 

 

Immigration tell Centrelink whose been outside of Australia for 183 days.  The next fortnight's pension is reduced by 30%.  What avenue of complaint do you have?  What avenue of appeal do you have? 

 

Can you see how simple the proposed changes are to collect non resident tax?  It's like traffic lights. The light was red when you went through, here's your fine.  It's can't be half red.  183 days is 183 days.  Income is income.

 

You see it as cost saving as far as pensioners are concerned, but what about all the self funded retirees.  That's not saving, that's revenue for the government.  Then what about all the people still working, on big money, playing the current system.  That's even more revenue for the government.  It all amounts to billions of extra dollars in revenue, and the only down side is people have to wait longer to see a doctor, as if the government cares about that. 

 

Let's just say the proposed changes come in, and pensions are not exempt.  Do expat retirees living outside of Australia for more than 183 days, and who are receiving a Centrelink pension, come under the criteria of been taxed at non resident rates, as per the proposed changes?

 

If the answer yes, the only hope is for an exemption.

 

If the answer is no, I'm happy to hear what part of the criteria they do not fit under.   

"I'm not confusing anything"!

 

With respect, universal compulsory super in Australia started in 1992.

 

Could you possibly keep your version of the "facts" to yourself?

 

Edited February 12, 2023 by LosLobo

[KhunHeineken]

11 minutes ago, scorecard said:

But you are not an expert on these subjects, far from it, so you shouldn't be so fast to give your opinions (often sound more like statements rather than opinions). Further you seem hell bent on making people feel vulnerable. Not nice and not needed.

You don't need to be an expert to know hiding assets and crying poor to Centrelink can be a crime. 

 

The way the member posted it, that's the way I took it, and so did another member.

 

I asked for clarification, he gave it, and I left it at that.

 

I'm not hell bent on making people vulnerable.  The proposed changes have been posted.  People should start planning for best and worse case scenarios, as per their individual circumstances.

 

Unlike yourself, I don't think this one is going to go away, or put in the too hard basket, or the too unpopular basket.

 

The current legislation is old and outdated, and has a lot of gray area.  The proposed changed do away with the gray area many have been hiding in for years, and not paying the correct tax.  Pensioners may just be collateral damage of the changes.  

 

17 minutes ago, scorecard said:

In any case right now this is a very open subject and anything could happen. Any changes will need to go through various announcements before an election and then ultimately the full legislative process.

I agree, but what's the harm in discussing it? 

 

I have said, I don't think it will become an election issue because it effects a minority, many who don't vote anyway. 

 

19 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Sure some politicians will vote the party line, others won't and that will include polies who will baulk at any changes in laws/regulations which negatively affect pensioners. (30% tax, really.)

It will not effect pensioners in Australia one bit, so why would they care?  Why would they be vocal, or vote a certain way, on a policy that does not effect them? 

 

The pensioners living overseas don't vote at Embassies come election time, so no votes lost, only money to save. 

 

Here's the non resident tax rates.  (scroll down a little)  It's actually 32.5%. 

 

https://www.ato.gov.au/rates/individual-income-tax-rates/

 

 

Foreign resident tax rates 2022–23

Taxable income	Tax on this income
0 – $120,000	32.5 cents for each $1

 

I think you need to stop focusing on the word "pension" and start focusing on the legal definition of "income." 

 

Out of Australia for 183 days.  Income from Australia.  Without an exemption, this is the way the new laws will view you.

[KhunHeineken]

2 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

"I'm not confusing anything"!

 

With respect, universal compulsory super in Australia started in 1992.

 

Could you possibly keep your version of the "facts" to yourself?

 

I stand corrected.  It was 1992. 

 

This changes everything now. 

 

Everybody can relax now.  LosLobo has posted super started in 1992, not the late 80's as I remembered.  These proposed changes to non resident taxation are now null and void.  Break out the champagne.  

[Will27]

8 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

I stand corrected.  It was 1992. 

 

This changes everything now. 

 

Everybody can relax now.  LosLobo has posted super started in 1992, not the late 80's as I remembered.  These proposed changes to non resident taxation are now null and void.  Break out the champagne.  

 

[KhunHeineken]

32 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Taxing expats is one thing, taxing pensions is an entirely different kettle of fish.

What about taxing expat pensioners?  Do pensioners in Australia care if they do? 

 

You seem to think there will be an exemption.  I hope there is, but there's nothing in the propose changes suggesting there will be, and if the law doesn't discriminate, every expat is in the same kettle.  From the rich, right down to the pensioner. 

 

34 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

When pensioners are forced to head back to Australia or be taxed 30% or whatever, they will be angry. And as the last election demonstrated quite unequivocally, angry people elect TEAL independents because they have had enough of the major parties.

You said it yourself, they are a minority.  Maybe a couple hundred thousand indirectly forced home, spread out over many electorates across Australia.  Then, you have to get the opposition to make it an election issue and for them to promise to repeal the legislation.  Not going to happen.

 

I actually don't think it will be an election issue.  It will probably be pushed through 5 minutes before the end of a sitting. 

 

Even if the media jumped on board, the policy can easily be justified with the headline, "Australian government seeking to stop Aussie tax payer funded pensions from been spent overseas" or something similar.  Do you think Australian tax payers would be for or against such a headline? 

 

42 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Self-funded retirees are living off investments within their superannuation funds. Which are a sacred cow in Australian politics. Look what happened to Shorten when he proposed those changes to dividend imputation credits, a considerable component of superannuation income.

Self-funded or OAP recipients, retirees are a significant electoral bloc. Whether they are inside or outside Australia.

"Self-funded retirees are living off investments within their superannuation funds" sure, but are they living overseas off it?

 

All bets are off when you are deemed a non resident for taxation purposes. 

 

The pool of voters with investment properties and franking credits is a lot bigger than expat pensioners. 

 

What makes you think these proposed changes are big enough to become an election issue?  It only effects a minority, many of who don't vote at election time. 

 

"Self-funded or OAP recipients, retirees are a significant electoral bloc. Whether they are inside or outside Australia." so why would the ones in Australia care about these proposed changes?  Why would they vote against it?  Sure, there may be a few that are aspiring to live overseas when they retire.  Do you think there numbers are there to have this voted down?  What if both parties are for the changes? 

 

[Lacessit]

13 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

What about taxing expat pensioners?  Do pensioners in Australia care if they do? 

 

You seem to think there will be an exemption.  I hope there is, but there's nothing in the propose changes suggesting there will be, and if the law doesn't discriminate, every expat is in the same kettle.  From the rich, right down to the pensioner. 

 

You said it yourself, they are a minority.  Maybe a couple hundred thousand indirectly forced home, spread out over many electorates across Australia.  Then, you have to get the opposition to make it an election issue and for them to promise to repeal the legislation.  Not going to happen.

 

I actually don't think it will be an election issue.  It will probably be pushed through 5 minutes before the end of a sitting. 

 

Even if the media jumped on board, the policy can easily be justified with the headline, "Australian government seeking to stop Aussie tax payer funded pensions from been spent overseas" or something similar.  Do you think Australian tax payers would be for or against such a headline? 

 

"Self-funded retirees are living off investments within their superannuation funds" sure, but are they living overseas off it?

 

All bets are off when you are deemed a non resident for taxation purposes. 

 

The pool of voters with investment properties and franking credits is a lot bigger than expat pensioners. 

 

What makes you think these proposed changes are big enough to become an election issue?  It only effects a minority, many of who don't vote at election time. 

 

"Self-funded or OAP recipients, retirees are a significant electoral bloc. Whether they are inside or outside Australia." so why would the ones in Australia care about these proposed changes?  Why would they vote against it?  Sure, there may be a few that are aspiring to live overseas when they retire.  Do you think there numbers are there to have this voted down?  What if both parties are for the changes? 

 

A lot of what if's in your post, consistent with your endless negativity.

Income from a superannuation fund is already taxed within the fund itself. Taxing it again at 30% would have every superannuant up in arms, double taxation is anathema whether one is inside or outside Australia.

You don't seem to realise both major parties no longer have enough grunt to pass legislation on their own, they have to go cap in hand to the independents now. It would only take someone like Jacqui Lambie or Andrew Wilkie to point out Australia would be the only country in the world taxing the OAP on the basis of where it is being spent, and denounce its lack of fairness.

You seem to delight in posting in the worst possible light. I'm reminded of Churchill's observation.

[giddyup]

Why would my aged pension be $24 less this month than previous months? Nothing has changed re my income etc.

[Artisi]

20 minutes ago, giddyup said:

Why would my aged pension be $24 less this month than previous months? Nothing has changed re my income etc.

Paid a few days earlier? 

[giddyup]

6 minutes ago, Artisi said:

Paid a few days earlier? 

Nope, exactly 4 weeks since the previous payment.

[Lacessit]

3 hours ago, giddyup said:

Why would my aged pension be $24 less this month than previous months? Nothing has changed re my income etc.

It depends on how assets are valued. In my case, Centrelink revalues shares and my Thai baht bank accounts every six months. For example, if the Thai baht appreciates against the AUD, my pension is adjusted lower.

[giddyup]

9 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

It depends on how assets are valued. In my case, Centrelink revalues shares and my Thai baht bank accounts every six months. For example, if the Thai baht appreciates against the AUD, my pension is adjusted lower.

My pension is paid into ANZ in Australia. Why would the Baht affect that payment? I understand that you get less Baht once the dollar is transferred.

[scorecard]

39 minutes ago, giddyup said:

My pension is paid into ANZ in Australia. Why would the Baht affect that payment? I understand that you get less Baht once the dollar is transferred.

Is you mean value is lost in the process of transfer from Australia, that's true, but it's very minimal. The gov't uses official processes to transfer the funds OZ to  the designated bank in Thailand, very very small fees involved.

 

Mine gets transferred to K Bank, K Bank takes about 160Baht each transfer. As said it's very minimal.  

Edited February 13, 2023 by scorecard

[Lacessit]

4 hours ago, giddyup said:

My pension is paid into ANZ in Australia. Why would the Baht affect that payment? I understand that you get less Baht once the dollar is transferred.

I don't know your circumstances. If you own anything that is market-linked, Centrelink re-assesses its value every six months. They may also be tracking your Thai bank accounts, which would be part of that process. Although IIRC you did say you do not report the Thai accounts as part of your asset base.

[giddyup]

8 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I don't know your circumstances. If you own anything that is market-linked, Centrelink re-assesses its value every six months. They may also be tracking your Thai bank accounts, which would be part of that process. Although IIRC you did say you do not report the Thai accounts as part of your asset base.

True or not, but I was told that C'link has no access to your bank accounts, they only know what you have if you tell them. The ATO may be different.

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/12/2023 at 11:29 AM, Lacessit said:

A lot of what if's in your post, consistent with your endless negativity.

I didn't know there was anything positive to say about governments, politicians, and taxes, especially new taxes. 

 

Ever since I was a teenager, any talk around the pub table was critical of government and politicians. They were either incompetent, lazy, or corrupt, or a combination of all of these, and history shows this to be true, but on these proposed changes, you are confident they will be "fair."  Sorry, I don't see it.     

 

On 2/12/2023 at 11:29 AM, Lacessit said:

Income from a superannuation fund is already taxed within the fund itself. Taxing it again at 30% would have every superannuant up in arms, double taxation is anathema whether one is inside or outside Australia.

This is the big pensioner backlash theory, except now you're saying it's superannuants being up in arms. 

 

Here's an example. 

 

Bill and Betty are self funded retirees living in a suburb in a major city in Australia.  They pick up their grandkids from school a couple of days a week and mind them for a few hours to help their own kids out, and on weekends the extended family get together for a BBQ.  Bill has the odd roll and a beer down at the bowlo with his mates, and Betty hits the cafe with her friends.  Your typical Aussie retired superannuant / self funded couple.

 

Just like in the pensioner backlash theory, tell me why Bill and Betty would give a rats a** if a superannuant living overseas was going to be taxed at non resident rates, let alone, why would they vote alongside that expat when it means more money for Australia, which would possibly benefit them?

 

Why would Bill and Betty be "up in arms" about it?  It doesn't effect them one little bit.

 

Now, say John was early 60's, single, has had a few trips to Thailand, will retire in the next couple of years, and wants to live in Thailand, yes, he will vote against it, that's if it even becomes and election issue, which I doubt it will.  

 

How many like John are in the electorate, compared to how many are like Bill and / or Betty? 

 

John is in such a small minority, and spread across the country, that both political parties wouldn't care about his vote, and knowing that expats don't go to an Embassy at election time, both parties would care even less about expats overseas.

 

On 2/12/2023 at 11:29 AM, Lacessit said:

You don't seem to realise both major parties no longer have enough grunt to pass legislation on their own, they have to go cap in hand to the independents now. It would only take someone like Jacqui Lambie or Andrew Wilkie to point out Australia would be the only country in the world taxing the OAP on the basis of where it is being spent, and denounce its lack of fairness.

Or, both political parties offer Jacki or Andrew a big government call center employing 300 people in their electorate, or a big new hospital in their electorate etc etc to vote with them.  

 

Their constituents will think they are great for bringing in employment and / or extra services. 

 

How would being "fair" to expat pensioners, or future expat pensioners, whom Jacki and Andrew receive next to zero votes from, be worth turning down such an offer from either political party and being re-elected for another term?  It's a no brainer for Jacki and Andrew to take the deal.

 

You don't seem to understand that it's all about their constituents and electorate, not Aussie expats overseas who don't vote at election time.

 

On 2/12/2023 at 11:29 AM, Lacessit said:

You seem to delight in posting in the worst possible light.

I certainly don't delight in any of this.  To be honest, the naivety of some on this topic is quite surprising. 

 

As a single, white, male, middle aged , employed, middle class with private health insurance, I've been paying out for others most of my life, and receiving nothing back, and you expect me to be "positive" about these proposed changes, and for the government to be "fair" towards me.  Well I simply don't share your confidence.

 

Blind Freddy can see what these proposed changes are all about, and with no mention of means testing or exemptions in them, I can only assume, yes, assume, there will be none built into the legislation, and everyone outside of Australia for more than 183 days, and deriving an income from Australia, and that includes a pension, will all be treated the same.  Anything other than this will be a bonus. 

 

All you are seeing in my posts is me preparing for the worse, and hoping for the best.

 

Members need to consider their situation in Thailand if they are going to be 32% down on whatever income they are receiving from Australia, because comments that were posted a few pages back like "the government would never do that because it would cost too many votes" or "that's just for people like Paul Hogan" is simply laughable. 

 

It's human nature to resist change, especially if it effects out comfort zone, but you know what they say about death and taxes.  

[KhunHeineken]

17 hours ago, giddyup said:

Why would my aged pension be $24 less this month than previous months? Nothing has changed re my income etc.

Perhaps because Centrelink has been reading your posts on this website. 

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/12/2023 at 10:46 AM, Will27 said:

 

I think the photo in your post depicts the Australian Tax Office going after money quite well. 

[KhunHeineken]

15 minutes ago, giddyup said:

True or not, but I was told that C'link has no access to your bank accounts, they only know what you have if you tell them. The ATO may be different.

Australia has a tax treaty with Thailand. 

[Artisi]

In summary, the 183 day rule doesn't  look good for expats. 

Interestingly, my accountant who I used to lodge my tax return each year raised the subject a few years back that if living overseas earnings generated in Aus. could be taxable - but appeared to be ignored if you kept your head down, and as I lodged a return each year using a local address we ignored it. Seems the current idea is to now toughen up and formalise it. 

For me, it makes no difference as I'm back in Aus, but given the opportunity to voice my opinion on it  I would be dead against it for the average low income earning pensioner. 

My gut feeling is it will come to pass - so expats who will be affected need to be aware of it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[giddyup]

16 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Australia has a tax treaty with Thailand. 

I said that I believed that C'link has no access to bank details anywhere in the world, the ATO may do in Australia but I doubt they do elsewhere.

[Artisi]

34 minutes ago, giddyup said:

True or not, but I was told that C'link has no access to your bank accounts, they only know what you have if you tell them. The ATO may be different.

C'link also doesn't have access to your tax info, it's all based on what you tell them re assets etc. 

 

[KhunHeineken]

14 minutes ago, Artisi said:

In summary, the 183 day rule doesn't  look good for expats. 

Interestingly, my accountant who I used to lodge my tax return each year raised the subject a few years back that if living overseas earnings generated in Aus. could be taxable - but appeared to be ignored if you kept your head down, and as I lodged a return each year using a local address we ignored it. Seems the current idea is to now toughen up and formalise it. 

For me, it makes no difference as I'm back in Aus, but given the opportunity to voice my opinion on it  I would be dead against it for the average low income earning pensioner. 

My gut feeling is it will come to pass - so expats who will be affected need to be aware of it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I, and several friends I know in Thailand, and I dare say, many Aussie expats all around the world, have been utilizing the big gray area between resident and non resident for taxation purposes.  Nothing illegal, and all to do with maintaining a "domicile" in Australia.

 

The 183 day rule does away will all of that gray area. 

 

If the proposed changes come in, and you are outside Australia for 183 days, and derive an income from Australia, and a pension is an income, as a worker or someone receiving a passive income, when you submit your next tax return, you will be given a bill by the ATO for 32% of your income, and as a pensioner, it's possible that the fortnight after being outside of Australia for 183 days you may receive 32% less pension. 

 

I see nothing in the proposed changes in relation to means testing, as in, sorting out the billionaires and millionaire from the small fish, and I see nothing in the proposed changes stating Australian pensions will be exempt.  

 

I agree.  I think it will be passed into legislation.  This one's not going to go away.  The current legislation has been around for decades.  They will update it with these proposed changes. 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

On 2/14/2023 at 11:10 AM, giddyup said:

True or not, but I was told that C'link has no access to your bank accounts, they only know what you have if you tell them. The ATO may be different.

Both don't have automatic access but they can of course request them under access laws if appropriate.

Edited February 15, 2023 by Fat is a type of crazy

[Lacessit]

I am wondering what happens to those pensioners who filled out a non-lodgment advice years ago, and dropped out of the tax system because they had no tax to pay. How would the ATO get back in contact to say you now need to do a tax return, and pay 30% tax on your pension?

AFAIK the ATO does not have the authority to take money from anyone's bank accounts. What does the ATO do if their communications are ignored?

Many years ago, I knew a guy who worked as a surveyor. Moved around a lot due to his job. He told me he had not submitted a tax return for 20 years.

[scorecard]

On 2/14/2023 at 8:09 AM, KhunHeineken said:

I, and several friends I know in Thailand, and I dare say, many Aussie expats all around the world, have been utilizing the big gray area between resident and non resident for taxation purposes.  Nothing illegal, and all to do with maintaining a "domicile" in Australia.

 

The 183 day rule does away will all of that gray area. 

 

If the proposed changes come in, and you are outside Australia for 183 days, and derive an income from Australia, and a pension is an income, as a worker or someone receiving a passive income, when you submit your next tax return, you will be given a bill by the ATO for 32% of your income, and as a pensioner, it's possible that the fortnight after being outside of Australia for 183 days you may receive 32% less pension. 

 

I see nothing in the proposed changes in relation to means testing, as in, sorting out the billionaires and millionaire from the small fish, and I see nothing in the proposed changes stating Australian pensions will be exempt.  

 

I agree.  I think it will be passed into legislation.  This one's not going to go away.  The current legislation has been around for decades.  They will update it with these proposed changes. 

And the know-all expert has spoken.

[Artisi]

On 2/14/2023 at 12:09 PM, KhunHeineken said:

I, and several friends I know in Thailand, and I dare say, many Aussie expats all around the world, have been utilizing the big gray area between resident and non resident for taxation purposes.  Nothing illegal, and all to do with maintaining a "domicile" in Australia.

 

The 183 day rule does away will all of that gray area. 

 

If the proposed changes come in, and you are outside Australia for 183 days, and derive an income from Australia, and a pension is an income, as a worker or someone receiving a passive income, when you submit your next tax return, you will be given a bill by the ATO for 32% of your income, and as a pensioner, it's possible that the fortnight after being outside of Australia for 183 days you may receive 32% less pension. 

 

I see nothing in the proposed changes in relation to means testing, as in, sorting out the billionaires and millionaire from the small fish, and I see nothing in the proposed changes stating Australian pensions will be exempt.  

 

I agree.  I think it will be passed into legislation.  This one's not going to go away.  The current legislation has been around for decades.  They will update it with these proposed changes. 

Not sure about it not being illegal - it was the practice by many but probably not tracked by ATO  as there wasn't any communication between ATO and Centrelink - however this could very well change if the current proposal is adopted.